or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jon Stewart exposes Apple stock manipulation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jon Stewart exposes Apple stock manipulation

post #1 of 156
Thread Starter 
Proving once again that the best way to reach Americans' brain is through their funny bone, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show continued his warpath aimed at irresponsible financial reporting by CNBC, specifically calling Jim Cramer out for his comments on how easy it was to profit from misinformation aimed at Apple.

Calling it "disingenuous at best and criminal at worst," Stewart grilled Cramer, the host of the frantic energetic "Mad Money" entertainment show, for his act of being "doe-eyed innocent" while celebrating the admittedly illegal shenanigans of hedge fund managers.

Stewart played clips of Cramer describing -- shortly before the iPhone was first announced -- how hedge fund managers could spread lies about the product through either gullible or willing media sources, creating either fear or excitement that would distort the company's stock, allowing the fund manager to profit.

Fomenting the market

In the clip filmed for The Street, Cramer notes that this practice of "fomenting the market" is "actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment." Cramer specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and that it wouldn't be ready to demonstrate in time for Macworld in 2007.

Apple's stock performance leading up to the 2007 unveiling of the iPhone made it a prime candidate for foment and manipulation, as media figures spewing misinformation could easily cause temporary, panic-induced drops that manipulators could then use to profit dramatically from. Other companies, including Microsoft, had seen so little change in their stock price since the 2000 bubble popped that they simply couldn't be manipulated as easily.

Fomenting the market against Apple, however, "is very easy, because the people who write about Apple want that story. And you can claim that it is credible because you spoke to someone at Apple, because Apple isnt in [a position to comment on unannounced products]. It is an ideal short."



Along with Apple, Cramer also cited RIM as a company that was easy to beat down with false information. "It might cost me $15 to $20 million to knock RIM down," he said, " but it would be fabulous because it would beleaguer all the moron longs [investing in RIMs success]."

"Who cares about the fundamentals?" Cramer said, "Research in Motion just blew out the quarter. But look what people can do. Thats a fabulous thing. The great thing about the market is that it has nothing to do with the actual stocks."

"Its important to get people talking about it as if something is wrong with RIM. Then you would call the [Wall Street] Journal and talk to the bozo reporter on Research in Motion and you would feed that Palm has got a killer it is going to give. These are the things that you must do on a day like today. And if you are not doing it, maybe you shouldnt be in the game."

Cramer added, "I think its important for people to realize that the way that the market really works is to have that nexus of: hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders that can push it down, then leak it to the press, and then get it on CNBC; thats also very important. And then youll have a vicious cycle down. Its a pretty good game. It can be played for a percent or two."

Cramer vs Cramer: The Street and CNBC

While playing a comical character on CNBC, Cramer's articles and video clips on his own "The Street" website reveal an entirely different side. "When I watch that," Stewart said, "I can't tell you how angry that makes me. Because what it says to me is you all know, you all know what's going on [...] a game you know is going on but that you go on television as a financial network and pretend it isnt happening."



The Street's War on Apple

Following the original iPhone pre-launch rumors Cramer talked about in The Street video clip, his site continued a merciless attack on the iPhone over the next year, including a "report" by Brett Arends which claimed that buying the iPhone would actually cost users $17,670, followed up by Arends' lists of reason not to buy it, many provided directly by industry flacks working for competing companies.

Cramer himself floated a false story immediately after the iPhone's launch that Apple's wireless partner Cingular (later renamed as AT&T) would provide a year and a half of free mobile service for the iPhone. The story was picked up by blogs and widely publicized on syndication sites like Digg. A myth busting report on the scam noted, "Saying that Cingular will give away $1440 worth of free service to perhaps ten million subscribers in order to earn just $480 from them across two years is an insane prediction."

The Street's Scott Moritz also served as a willing accomplice in filing dubious reports aimed at nailing Apple's stock, including the idea that Apple's spectacular launch weekend was actually disappointing because the company had really intended to ship a million units within three days, citing unnamed "whisper" sources.

In reality, legitimate analysts had actually expected Apple to ship 150,000 to 350,000 iPhones at launch; Apple reported selling 270,000 in the last two days of June quarter which made up most of the launch weekend. However, Moritz described a bleak scenario where Apple had failed to sell out its inventory, despite very constrained availability of the iPhone at most of Apple's 200 retail stores and many of AT&T's outlets over the first month. Because of this supposed failure to launch, Moritz insisted, "Theres a lot of rejoicing at Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile."

The Street would also frequently take factual reports and add a hysterical, frantically panicked spin, sometimes to directly bring the stock down and other times to create impossible expectations invented to cause a temporary bubble. One suggested that Apple's AT&T revenue sharing deal was "unheard of," despite the fact that similar revenue sharing had long been underlying RIM's BlackBerry success. That provided Cramer with the timing to announce "I am being abject and adamant: Sell some Apple ahead of earnings."

Never mind the iPhone 3G: Steve Jobs is sick!

Last year, the Street continued badgering Apple, brushing aside the global launch of the iPhone 3G to try to focus coverage on Steve Jobs' health in a video segment titled "Without Steve Jobs, There is No Apple."

"This is a company that thrives on innovation, and the innovation is all being driven by one man. Cramer said of Apple. Thats okay, the one man is not a stock. I mean, you cant. The multiple of one person is zero. Well, one. But I would warn people that this company I dont want to call it nothing without him, but it is not investible without him, because he is the driver of ideas. Now behind anybody therell be other ideas, but I remember the original Apple, and it was all him, too."

Cramer has largely been successful in spreading the meme that Apple is wholly dependent upon Jobs for its survival, but the idea that Apple's success has all been flowing all from the veins of one man is as absurd as the idea that the original Apple of the early 1980s did, too. "Jobs was regarded as a pariah in the business community, a maverick that drove down profits to advance technology and the state of the art. Had Cramer been anything of note in the mid 80s, he would have been slamming Apple for not acting quicker to rid itself of Jobs," a report on Cramer's take noted.
post #2 of 156
delete
post #3 of 156
I hope that some of the people who call in to Cramer's show and heap praise on him
for "helping the little guy" had their eyes opened by his boasting about manipulating
stocks.
post #4 of 156
man this stuff is nuckn futs!
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #5 of 156
Actually, Jim Cramer is the one who broke this news, not Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart just replayed a video that has been on youtube for 4 months, made by theStreet.com and clearly intended for public consumption, to describe to anyone who cared to listen how hedge funds operate. Before jumping to conclusions, watch the video for yourself, without Stewart's filter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfWSRuNm6do

I don't know who's right or wrong here... I like both guys (Stewart and Cramer), but I think it's important that people at least research the facts themselves before anyone gets crucified. (Oops, too late.) It sure seems to me that Cramer is trying to inform people as to what is going on, not engaging in some sinister conspiracy, which is how some people seem to be taking it.
post #6 of 156
Come on teckstud, did you comment before you actually learned to listen?
post #7 of 156
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
post #8 of 156
Does anyone else find it peculiar, even disingenuous, the way Prince McLean/Daniel Eran Dilger links to his own articles on roughlydrafted?
post #9 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_cazorp View Post

Does anyone else find it peculiar, even disingenuous, the way Prince McLean/Daniel Eran Dilger links to his own articles on roughlydrafted?

Discrete Mathematical Digraph self loop?
post #10 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Come on teckstud, did you comment before you actually learned to listen?

I know you're just disappointed you missed it. I pulled it 'cause I'm a nice guy and don't want to upset anyone for a change.
post #11 of 156
Ah yes, of course, the DMD loop, what was I thinking.
post #12 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post

I don't know who's right or wrong here... I like both guys (Stewart and Cramer), but I think it's important that people at least research the facts themselves before anyone gets crucified. ...

I'll give you a big hint.

The guy that's "wrong" here is the guy that's breaking the law. Jim Cramer.

Trivialities aside though, the thing I don't understand about "the Street" is why it's been allowed to go on for so long. Cramer has been pretty upfront about his whole schtick being (illegal) stock manipulation for a very long time. In Europe, Canada etc. this kind of stuff gets you dragged away in handcuffs if you admit to it. It still goes on of course as insider trading and stock manipulation are the very basis of most trades (at least Cramer is honest about what he's doing).

Isn't this also illegal in the USA? Why was Cramer not jailed years ago?
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #13 of 156
This just goes into the same category I lump everything else I hear from "analysts" about future Apple releases.

The only "people" I listen to about possible new Apple products or updates are the ones that don't work for financial institutions. I've found over the years that analysts make the same broad sweeping statements that anyone of us on this site or MacRumors can make that understands Apple and their "system".

It annoys me when an analyst will say, "Apple is set to release new iMacs in the next quarter" or "Apple will release the newly updated iPhone at the end of June or early July." REALLY????? No sh!t Sherlock! If Apple hasn't freshened up the iMacs after 9 months, I could easily say AND BE CORRECT that Apple would update them in the next 3 months. And EVERYONE knows that the June July transition is the iPhone's birthday for being reborn each year.
post #14 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that).

I take it you're not a regular viewer of The Daily Show. Stewart has slagged off CNBC Cramer and on multiple occasions, and long before Cramer ever opened his mouth about Obama - which was IMO yet another attempt on his part to manipulate the market. Exercising this power he's acquired trumps his party loyalty every time, or so it seems... not that it isn't hard to spook such a shaky market these days.
post #15 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I'll give you a big hint.

The guy that's "wrong" here is the guy that's breaking the law. Jim Cramer.

Trivialities aside though, the thing I don't understand about "the Street" is why it's been allowed to go on for so long. Cramer has been pretty upfront about his whole schtick being (illegal) stock manipulation for a very long time. In Europe, Canada etc. this kind of stuff gets you dragged away in handcuffs if you admit to it. It still goes on of course as insider trading and stock manipulation are the very basis of most trades (at least Cramer is honest about what he's doing).

Isn't this also illegal in the USA? Why was Cramer not jailed years ago?

I'm just curious as to what you think Cramer is doing that is illegal? Reporting on stock price manipulation is not a crime. If you have any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, what is it?
post #16 of 156
The old Cramer tapes have been around a long time: I first saw that 2 years ago on Roughly Drafted:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...mation-engine/
post #17 of 156
People already knew about this whole thing, I don't understand what's the fuss about.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #18 of 156
John Leibowitz is not news.
post #19 of 156
By the way, AppleInsider, you're next on the Jon Stewart 'entertainment being presented as actual news' hit list.
post #20 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

People already knew about this whole thing, I don't understand what's the fuss about.

Because for once someone with a large public voice told these CNBC types exactly what all of us have wanted to, but would never have a forum to do so.

Stewart is looking out for the working man who may save $1,000,000 over a lifetime of work in IRAs and 401ks, Cramer and the CNBC guys are looking out for the guys who spend that much on toilets for their offices.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #21 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNipponese View Post

By the way, AppleInsider, you're next on the Jon Stewart 'entertainment being presented as actual news' hit list.

entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral...

All I see on the news channels is pathetic drivel, never really investigating, just reading press releases, almost as if they are puppets, and that is in the 5 minutes an hour about real news, the rest od the time is all about crap news like a freak with 16 kids, Jaylo, or whatever Hollywood wants to sell that minute.

As a fan of Stewart, I must sau that this fewd was fed by CNBC, first, Santelly wosses out, then obviously, he is gonna get whacked by Stewart for bailing out, but if Craimer woulda left it alone and not written that bitchy little column on Mainstreet.com, it woulda died there, but he wrote it, and it went on.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #22 of 156
There is a nice little cell next to Madoff's for Cramer?
post #23 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.

You don't need to do that - you got Rush Limbaugh.
post #24 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post

I'm just curious as to what you think Cramer is doing that is illegal? Reporting on stock price manipulation is not a crime. If you have any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, what is it?

How about you go back and read the article again--it very clearly explains what's illegal. Cramer is not reporting on the stock manipulation. (Only Jon Stewart is.) Cramer is actually doing the manipulation, and was nearly bragging about it. At the very least he was explaining how to do it, in rather eye-opening detail, considering that what he was describing is illegal. He colluded (exactly as Jon Stewart said) in pump-n-dump and/or deflate-n-short manipulation on AAPL and other stocks.

Further, what Jon Stewart was castigating Cramer (and the rest of CNBC) for was their not reporting on the stock manipulation.

What part of that is unclear to you?
post #25 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark View Post

There is a nice little cell next to Madoff's for Cramer?

For what, exactly?
post #26 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.

I assume as a conservative, you are very wealthy, so get cable and watch the fucking show, he has been bashing dems and repubs about 50/50 for the last 5 years or so (that is how long I have watched anyhow.)
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #27 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral....

They certainly aren't. I haven't seen a hard-hitting interview like that in a while. Jon Stewart demonstrated he's more of a journalist than most other "reporters" out there. Honestly, only he and the staff of 60 Minutes really ask any serious questions anymore. One would hope that what happened last night would be a wake-up call to the other networks, especially considering what kind of ratings it probably got. Good journalism attracts eyeballs.

But I bet nobody in charge of the other "news" shows will pay attention....
post #28 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post

For what, exactly?

For stock manipulation. Are you unable to comprehend the article or are you unwilling?
post #29 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.

Your anti-Obama / anti-liberal diatribe aside, I'll reiterate what Stewart himself said at the very beginning of the interview: his fury was not directly aimed at Cramer (who BTW is a Democrat and voted for Obama), but at CNBC for their shoddy reporting in general. Cramer was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

I give Cramer credit, though, for having the cajones to come on TDS and take the tongue-lashing that he did. Santelli was not so brave.
post #30 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward (sic) just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc.

As one who does watch the show every night, I'm calling you out on your lies. On Wednesday night, Stewart castigated Obama at length. He certainly has on other nights as well. If you watched the show as you claim, you'd know that. Or perhaps you did know and simply chose to bald-face lie in your post.
post #31 of 156
I think part of the issue is that Santelli can't survive an attack like this, where Cramer could. I also find it difficult to give Cramer much accolades when he's the one who admitted to making 30% for 9 years in a row, which is what caused issues like we are currently in. I'd take 12 minutes of getting yelled at if I made that much cash.
post #32 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post

Actually, Jim Cramer is the one who broke this news, not Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart just replayed a video that has been on youtube for 4 months, made by theStreet.com and clearly intended for public consumption, to describe to anyone who cared to listen how hedge funds operate. Before jumping to conclusions, watch the video for yourself, without Stewart's filter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfWSRuNm6do

I don't know who's right or wrong here... I like both guys (Stewart and Cramer), but I think it's important that people at least research the facts themselves before anyone gets crucified. (Oops, too late.) It sure seems to me that Cramer is trying to inform people as to what is going on, not engaging in some sinister conspiracy, which is how some people seem to be taking it.

Cramer also did nothing to deny that he engaged in the same activity when Stewart asked. Cramer is just about claiming the status of a thief who now gives away the tricks thieves use to "get by with it" so that makes him one of the good guys. I don't buy it.
post #33 of 156
I found the video hilarious and sad at the same time. Stewart has the gift of comedian's insight and can approach a topic from unusual angles that will throw a guest off their stump speech.

Listening to the various techniques Cramer used (or might have used) as a hedge fund manager just illustrates how powerful greed is as a motivator. He certainly failed at defending Wall Street's destructive greed.

We'll see even more destructive behavior as taxes increase on these same people who have the means to lessen the hit by staying one step ahead of the IRS with financial chicanery. More unintended consequences on our fragile economy as people server their self interests.

It's good that this is out there so people can absorb the lesson. Cramer's made some unbelievably bad calls recently and yet his show goes on. And his following will probably increase. It appears that although we may absorb the lessons, our reptilian brains often override that knowledge and we repeat past mistakes.

I don't mind AI covering other side stories such as this. Sometimes fluff provides powerful insights.
post #34 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

How about you go back and read the article again--it very clearly explains what's illegal. Cramer is not reporting on the stock manipulation (Jon Stewart is.) Cramer is actually *doing* the manipulation, AND was nearly bragging about it. At the very least he was explaining how to do it, in rather eye-opening detail, considering that what he was describing *is* illegal. He colluded (exactly as Jon Stewart said) in pump-n-dump and/or deflate-n-short manipulation on AAPL and other stocks. What part of that is unclear to you?

What's unclear is how such a scheme could possible work with two big, glaring, painfully obvious flaws:

A) He didn't have a hedge fund at the time, or any other trading account on which he could have profited from the trade. He was out of the trading business for something like 4 or 5 years when that clip was filmed. Since he is a TV commentator, he isn't allowed any trading accounts except a charitable trust, in which he is not allowed to day-trade, so this scheme couldn't work there. So, unless you are alleging that he has some secret account somewhere, I am "unclear" how he could have profited from this scheme.

B) He very clearly, plainly describes it as a MANIPULATION (your word)- how can you profit from any rumor or manipulation when you clearly identify it as such? Would you (or anyone you know) buy or sell a stock based on news that was clearly identified as being false and intended to manipulate the stock?

He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger. It's just silly to think that a stock manipulator would operating by posting videos on the web that are publicly available to everyone, including the SEC, in which he plainly states that he is spreading a phony rumor. How could you profit from that? Presumably that's the point, isn't it? To make money without getting arrested?

Again, I'd like to see actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I am certainly open to that possibility. But so far all I am seeing are torches and pitchforks.
post #35 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

You don't need to do that - you got Rush Limbaugh.

I don't need to do what? FWIW, I happen to be someone - probably a rare person these days - who votes for whom I think is the best candidate, not because they have a big D or R stamped on them (2 sides of the same coin for the most part). I used to watch Stewart almost "Daily" until his political bias distracted too much from his humor. With so much low-hanging comedy fruit to harvest from both the left and the right, it annoyed me that Stewart seldom touched on scandals or incompetence coming from the Dem side of the aisle, and when it came to his nightly guests, he always seemed to be fawning over liberal guests and sticking it to conservative guests. Just pull up YouTube videos when he interviewed Obama vs. McCain, for example.

That's the way I see it, anyway. As to my political bias, I don't care if gays marry or not (it doesn't threaten my marriage), I'm pretty much pro-choice, I'm not religious, I believe in a strong military, and I believe in a government where most of the power resides at the city / county / state level, not the federal level, among other things. Maybe not your cup of tea across the board, but them's the breaks :-)
post #36 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

Cramer also did nothing to deny that he engaged in the same activity when Stewart asked. Cramer is just about claiming the status of a thief who now gives away the tricks thieves use to "get by with it" so that makes him one of the good guys. I don't buy it.

Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
post #37 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral...

All I see on the news channels is pathetic drivel, never really investigating, just reading press releases, almost as if they are puppets, and that is in the 5 minutes an hour about real news, the rest od the time is all about crap news like a freak with 16 kids, Jaylo, or whatever Hollywood wants to sell that minute.


As a fan of Stewart, I must sau that this fewd was fed by CNBC, first, Santelly wosses out, then obviously, he is gonna get whacked by Stewart for bailing out, but if Craimer woulda left it alone and not written that bitchy little column on Mainstreet.com, it woulda died there, but he wrote it, and it went on.

Nail on the head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post

John Leibowitz is not news.

That's all you got?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNipponese View Post

By the way, AppleInsider, you're next on the Jon Stewart 'entertainment being presented as actual news' hit list.

Why are you here then?
post #38 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

For stock manipulation. Are you unable to comprehend the article or are you unwilling?

That first one, I guess. See my previous post.
post #39 of 156
I e-mailed a question to Cramer's show a while back about a stock. I thought it was a good question since someone from the show called me back and wanted me to ask it on the air. BUT, I was told to revise my question a bit and after a little coaching by the show rep I realized the question I had originally thought of had absolutely nothing to do with what they wanted me to ask. Pretty much the company name was the only thing in common.

I never really though much of his show to begin with, but that experience really made it clear that it is first and foremost just a TV Show.
13" MacBook 2.4ghz, 4g RAM, 500g Scorpio HD, 22" Samsung SyncMaster
Reply
13" MacBook 2.4ghz, 4g RAM, 500g Scorpio HD, 22" Samsung SyncMaster
Reply
post #40 of 156
I saw this exact interview a long time ago and it made me furious. I sent a link to my spouse, cause we argued about Apple stock swinging all over the place.

Maybe finally somebody will sue the idiot CNBC station. If I had a nickel for every family argument those creeps caused with their manipulation I'd be rich.

I was stuck at home sick for a while, and after watching all of PBS's shows I started watching CNBC for a while. They would pre-announce a certain price for Apple stock and what a good trading opportunity it would be. Sure enough, within 15 minutes the stock would fall to that price and then rebound within a day or so back to the prior price. I saw this often enough to really be furious with them.

Class action suit anybody? This would be so easy a story to tell, plenty of video on my DVR.
Looking forward to at least fewer arguments at home about apple stock.
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jon Stewart exposes Apple stock manipulation